Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and developer at odds over 1130 Cole Street additions; board orders one‑week continuance for settlement effort
Summary
Owners and neighbors clashed over an excavated grade, a high retaining wall and a rebuilt rear 'bump‑out' at 1130 Cole Street; neighbors sought lowering and finish of fence/retaining wall and discretionary planning review of the bump‑out. The board directed both sides to submit short written lists of proposed remedies and continued the matter one week to May 19 for possible settlement.
Neighbors of 1130 Cole Street told the San Francisco Board of Appeals that recent construction by the site’s developer substantially altered neighborhood conditions, citing a tall retaining wall and fence, an exposed and unfinished firewall, changes to grade that created gaps and exposed framing, and a rebuilt rear bump‑out that they say reduces light to a rented unit.
Jeff and Nancy Noakes and Samina Ali described ongoing problems: damaged planting beds, a tall fence and retaining wall visible from their yards, and a rebuilt rear appendage whose steeper roofline and altered slope they said left a tenant’s bedroom in a “tunnel” of reduced light. Their counsel, Jeremy Paul, presented historical aerial photos and site photos that he said show the current construction departs from renderings and older site conditions, and he asked the board to require the fence be lowered to a maximum of 6 feet above the adjacent grade, to finish the exposed face on both sides, and to subject the bump‑out to discretionary planning review.
Developer Chris Coppell, represented by counsel, said he purchased a dilapidated, abandoned property and has sought permits to stabilize and restore the building. His team presented Sanborn maps and planning/building approvals and said the fence/retaining wall and rebuilt appendage comply with applicable planning and DBI requirements; project architect Suhail Shatara described permits and inspections and said the rebuild was intended as an in‑kind replacement that meets modern code (including increases in framing size to meet structural requirements).
DBI and Planning staff visited the site and described a complex permit history of renewals, stop‑work orders during earlier phases of the project, and a revision permit that is now under appeal. City staff said the fence measured at no point above the 10‑foot planning allowance from the subject property grade (but that adjacent properties are higher), and that Planning’s "6‑inch" tolerance and DBI replacement rules inform whether neighborhood (3.11) notice is required.
After extensive testimony and cross‑examination, the board concluded the dispute involves both code‑interpretation and neighbor‑relation issues. Commissioners asked the parties to attempt a negotiated resolution of finish and fence details and to submit concise written lists of the items each side would accept (and would not accept) by close of business the day before the next hearing. The board continued the matter one week to May 19, 2010 to allow settlement efforts and to permit the panel to adjudicate any remaining disputes if no resolution is reached.
